Mathematical Infinity - Hilbert Hotel and GOD.

[Admin]

Comments on Mathematical Infinity, The Hilbert Hotel, and how these thoughts impact GOD.


youtu.be/OxGsU8oIWjY

Pretend the Hilbert Hotel is filled with infinite rooms and is already full with infinite people, and suddenly another person shows up wanting a room. This  is already an impossible notion, that violates the concept of infinity. And we are just a few seconds into this video.

Another weird thought is you cannot have a bus full of infinity people showing up to a hotel already full of infinity people to begin with.

Why? Because the term infinity already implies all the elements there are, so you cannot make more than than all there is already, that is why it is called infinity. These Maths professors are making some weird mistake with this concept of infinity. They are inventing imaginative ways to invent brand new terms that do not exist in the real world but only in the imaginative world of mathematics.

One professor eloquently said, there is an infinity of numbers between 3 and 4 but this number does not include the number 5.

That is ridiculous. The amount of numbers between 3 and 4 has to be extremely large, but it also must come to an end, as the number 5 tells you not all numbered elements are within the limits set by 3 and 4. If infinity is the granddaddy of all universal sets, you cannot make another universal set. Therefore you cannot make an infinite number of infinities.

The problem with Hilbert Hotel thinking is Mathematics experts are defining “infinity” as something “finite” in maths. The idea of “countable infinity” is a notion of “finite infinity”, the person is reducing the uncountable nature of infinity to something finite, something a mind can imagine. You can’t do this. Infinity is infinity and it’s an extremely large concept called God, who is a person. I see Infinity as the Grand Universal Set, thus all things are inside this Set. This implies all numbers are finite in number, even though this number seems to be extremely large.

Some numbers like the value of PI is a number without no apparent end, and computers have calculated PI to more than 20 million digits today.

I had a brief look into the thinking of some things:-

Some say you cannot implement for uncountable infinite sets, and the Bertrand Russell proof proves this idea. Much of the reading goes way over my head.

Some say a finite set is finite because you can count all the elements in it.

Than some say “Now try counting the number of stars in the universe. You won’t be able to, because there are an infinite number of items in the set of all stars”.
(From www.statisticshowto.com/finite-set-and-infinite-sets/)

These notions are weird to say the least.

Ge 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

God invites Abram who had no child of his own yet to count the stars above him, so shall thy seed be. And Abram had faith in the LORD.

If God is infinite in all things, than the universe of stars is finitely smaller even though the number of stars in our universe is extremely large, it is not infinite as some claim.

And all the billions of children born under Abram is also an extremely large number, but this number is finite too, not infinite as some claim.

Can you count all the hair follicles on your head? Is this number finite or infinite? It has to be a very large number but its finite.

Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

So the infinite Father can count extremely large finite sets such as the number of stars in the universe and the number of hairs on your head, and the exact number of living cells in your body at any given second. But no human can do this. So we humans have reduced infinity to something lesser in our thinking so we can become exalted, and thus we pretend to be a god.


There are some like Cantor and Bertrand Russell, proved that the Universal Set cannot contain everything as it leads to paradoxes and inconsistencies. Hmm? We define a Universal Set as the set of all things, so why can’t a Universal Set contain all things? Something is wrong here and it makes GOD no longer all powerful and all knowing?

Consider this simple presentation of Russell’s Paradox.

youtu.be/ymGt7I4Yn3k

Wow, a simple video simply explained that blows your mind !

This leads me to an Ancient Hebrew letter that exists in Ancient Hebrew, that fits into the thinking of Ancient Hebrew people, and is a letter meaning given to mankind by GOD.

This letter is called Quph, meaning “The unknown over the horizon”

This letter is the foundation of Bible philosophy concerning the unknown:-

Ps 131:1 ...neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.

Here are some investigations in word meanings beginning with Quph:-

Strong’s 7080 “meaning divine” “The unknown outgrowth flows”
Strong’s 7081 “meaning divination” “The unknown outgrowth flows” .
This Hebrew Word has both verb and noun forms for the same word meaning.

Strong’s 7100 “Unknown travelling outside” “an unknown plant”
Strong’s 7090 “Unknown active hands mouthed secure through the door” “an unknown animal”
Strong’s 6913 “Unknown home head” “meaning grave""bury/buried”
Strong’s 6901 “Unknown home authority” meaning “take/takings”
Strong’s 6908 “Unknown home travels” meaning “gather/gathering”

So using these ideas about Quph, we can speculate that between the numbers 3 and 4 there is Q but this does not include the number 5.

Since infinity is all the numbers there is, the Q between 3 and 4 must be by definition finite, though it is an extremely larger number.

The number of all stars in our universe is also Q, an unknown but extremely larger number. Known to GOD but unknown to mankind.

Cantor acknowledged God as one of three kinds of infinities, but went on to invent other terms such as mathematical infinity and metaphysical infinity. As limited as my mind is regarding complex things, I do not agree with this idea. A better term would be to invent the mathematical term , based on Hebrew, called Q, as an extremely large uncountable number for humans but is finite for God.

Shalom

[Admin]

Consider Strong’s 7080 “meaning divine” “The unknown outgrowth flows”

Strong’s 7081 “meaning divination” “The unknown outgrowth flows” 

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad "halal" (the Hebrew word meaning "praise" in this context, the opposite meaning is understood, hence "mad"..

Notice GOD does not tolerate the unknown outgrowth flow of powers apart from Himself.

Strong’s 6901 “Unknown home authority” meaning “take/takings”

Here is a verse describing this word meaning explaining in simple terms 'faith'

Ho 14:2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

The "take" in Ancient Hebrew reads "“Unknown home authority”. Why is this taking we take an “Unknown home authority” ? Because faith is defined as this:-

Heb 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This does not mean we cannot use this "unknown home authority". We use electricity as a power but do not fully understand it. Likewise we can take the takings as His words, saying them to Him, Lift away our guilt and received us graciously so we will render the mouth head of our lips.

Some words like "par" is used 98% for bull and 2% for humans who are similes of the mouthed head like a bull uses hit's mouth head to mourn or "mouth off". So how do we translate this word in a context that fits all the verses? Hmm? "mouth head" is all I can think of.

Strong’s 6913 “Unknown home head” “meaning grave""bury/buried”

Nomadic Hebrew people considered death and hell as some unknown.

The grave is considered as the head is laid home in some unknown. Some think the head goes to heaven straight away, but the Ancient Hebrew letters do not teach this idea. The head is laid home in some place unknown.

Ps 88:11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?

 

The grave is an “Unknown home head”. Notice the unknown is contrasted with another unknown power termed faith, that is not unto destruction as the grave is. Faith is for the living, where we can access the unknown powers of GOD fully and live under it's power, which we appropriate as our own, to the glory of God.

Shalom

[Admin]

Garfield is a cat. 'Garfield' is the subject and 'is a cat' the predicate, that tells us something about the subject.

Rule 10 says You can predicate things of predicates. "is a cat" sounds funny? Well I suppose you can do this. 'is a cat' becomes a subject and 'sounds funny' becomes the predicate. So rule 10 says you can make a predicate into a subject.

Rule 11 Predicates can be true of themselves.

Consider 'is a cat' is a cat? Is this true? No, because the subject is not able to be a cat as the predicate is saying.
Only elements like cats can be labelled 'is a cat'.

Another example 'is a predicate' is a predicate? This statement is true.

List example of predicates that are NOT true of themselves:

1) 'is a cat' is a cat? No 'is a cat' has no tail, or fur so cannot be true of itself
2) 'dunk' dunks? No 'dunk' is not able to dunk, so cannot be true of itself
3) 'tastes like chicken' tastes like chicken? cannot be true, for mere words cannot have a taste.

List example of 'predicates' that are TRUE of themselves:

1) 'is a predicate' is a predicate? This is true, as predicates are predicates
2) 'is a string of words' is a string of words? is true.
3) 'comes at the end of the sentence' comes at the end of the sentence? is also true of itself.

Now let's make a predicate that is a contradiction and thus a paradox.

"is not true of itself" is not true of itself?

If it is true of itself, than it isn't true of itself, because the predicate says it is not true of itself.

If it is NOT true of itself, than it meets the condition that it is not true of itself, than it is.

So we have a contradiction. Thus the language of communication breaks down using logic as the foundation of both maths and language. We have a problem.

Our speaker wipes down the glass board and leaves us with nothing to say.

Ancient Hebrew has a letter for this, 'Q' and a Bible principle:

Psalms 131, some things are just to high for us to fathom. Shalom

PS: 

As a science teacher long ago, I discovered people have trouble with double negatives in speech. If the temperature of the classroom was a cool 22 degrees Celsius, and I said to my students 

"Its not a hot day is it?"

If the day was not a hot day, they should answer "no, it's not a hot day" or

If the day was not a hot day, they should answer "yes, it's not a hot day"

or

But if the day was a hot day, they would answer "yes, it's not a hot day" or

But if the day was a hot day, they would answer "no, it's not a hot day"

What answer you expect from your students? Like in this video, dealing with double negative is difficult to fathom. Or are you confused by another paradox?

Shalom